How does MFP determine sugar goal?

FarewellBlues
FarewellBlues Posts: 66 Member
edited November 2024 in Food and Nutrition
Umm. How does MFP set the sugar goal? (I realize it's not exactly a goal but just sort of a guideline to stay under or whatever). But I just noticed it's higher than my carbohydrate goal. So, if I'm sticking to my targets, it's literally impossible to go over on sugar. It doesn't really matter, I presume most people ignore it or assume it's a guideline for a limit.
So I guess this post is more of an amusing observation, but I'm genuinely curious to know how MFP arrives at a "sugar goal" - especially given that it doesn't differentiate added sugar from naturally occurring sugar, so it doesn't seem to be per WHO or AHA or whatever guidelines. Anyone know?

Replies

  • malibu927
    malibu927 Posts: 17,562 Member
    I believe it's 15% of your total calories
  • FarewellBlues
    FarewellBlues Posts: 66 Member
    Ahh, that makes sense. I feel like they should have something better in place -- a lot of people seem to end up confused over whether they should be eating apples or not. =)
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 35,190 Member
    Dartboard? Monkeys with typewriters?

    I certainly think it's pointless. People with diabetes need smarter goals, and the rest of us need to focus elsewhere (IMO). Maybe it exists simply so that people who have an actual reason to care have a way to set a personal goal, and MFP has to give it a default value in order to make the coding work. (Shrug) I track fiber instead.
  • FarewellBlues
    FarewellBlues Posts: 66 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I certainly think it's pointless. People with diabetes need smarter goals, and the rest of us need to focus elsewhere (IMO).
    If the goal is weight loss people could certainly focus their attention elsewhere. You may notice that there's a veritable epidemic of diabetes, and many of them are overweight. I also know some type I diabetics who'd love an easier way to track their food and see what affects them. So it might be worthwhile for MFP to give people a somewhat more useful tool. Granted that's somewhat harder than coding a default value, and for a free tool MFP is already top-notch.
  • northend2014
    northend2014 Posts: 10 Member
    I keep reading that sugar is calculated as 15% of total calories but that would allow me 253g of sugar! (1690cal allowance)
    My sugar allowance seems to be 66g which is 3.9% of my calories. Unless I'm working it out very wrong (very possible)
  • emailmehere1122
    emailmehere1122 Posts: 140 Member
    edited October 2017
    northend2014 wrote: »
    I keep reading that sugar is calculated as 15% of total calories but that would allow me 253g of sugar! (1690cal allowance)
    My sugar allowance seems to be 66g which is 3.9% of my calories. Unless I'm working it out very wrong (very possible)

    15 % of 1690 is 253 calories
    66 grams of sugar is roughly 264 calories

    ETA
    Sugar is just under 4 calories a gram
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    northend2014 wrote: »
    I keep reading that sugar is calculated as 15% of total calories but that would allow me 253g of sugar! (1690cal allowance)
    My sugar allowance seems to be 66g which is 3.9% of my calories. Unless I'm working it out very wrong (very possible)

    No...there are 4 calories per gram of sugar. 66g of sugar would be 264 calories...about 15.6% of your daily calories.
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    FarewellBlues wrote: »
    Ahh, that makes sense. I feel like they should have something better in place -- a lot of people seem to end up confused over whether they should be eating apples or not. =)

    Better idea: ignore the sugar goal. Sugar is just part of carbs and most people really only need to count total carbs. Making sure you get enough fiber (yet another subset of carbs) is more important to most people than staying under the sugar goal. Yes, if you have a medical reason to watch sugars, do so. Most people don't
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    FarewellBlues wrote: »
    Ahh, that makes sense. I feel like they should have something better in place -- a lot of people seem to end up confused over whether they should be eating apples or not. =)

    MFP really can't do an "added sugar" goal (which might make sense) because labels don't yet make that distinction. It wouldn't surprise me if it eventually becomes that (and uses the current dietary guidelines recommendation of under 10% of calories, which is still pretty generous for most, IMO). For the time being, if you eat a lot of foods with intrinsic sugar (like fruit), it's probably best to look at fiber.

    I watch fiber when logging since I tend to low carb also, but I also watch sugar just because I'm interested in totals and how many are from veg, etc. But that's mainly because there's nothing else I care to watch, not because I think it really adds much. More important for me is knowing I'm not eating a lot of foods that contain a whole bunch of added sugar, that my diet as a whole is nutrient dense.
  • rosyone1
    rosyone1 Posts: 32 Member
    I'm low carbing now, but even when I wasn't I didn't track sugar. It never seemed useful to do so when the app doesn't differentiate between natural sugar and added processed sugar, which I try to avoid. Any non-fiber carbs I consume will ultimately be utilized as sugar anyway, whether or not they started out as sugar.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories